I think we have a series of ruff rules that users can use after upgrading https://docs.astral.sh/ruff/rules/#airflow-air — and some of those have auto fixes too.
If we don’t currently have one for models -> sdk change we should add one. -ash > On 5 May 2025, at 20:12, Jens Scheffler <j_scheff...@gmx.de.INVALID> wrote: > > I also attempted to migrate and can say that such movement can be confusing. > > And most users just hitting "Google" will find the "old" examples for the > next period of time. Even today sometimes my results in "Google" refer to > outdated serversion and not to "/stable" branch of docs. > > Unfortunately I have currently no capacity but to eae migration for users I > would really appreciate if 2.11 could have a shim layer that airflow-sdk is > an alias for the respective model classes. Then users could (1) start > migration early and (2) are not confused when reading the 3.0 docs while > still being on 2.x... > > On 05.05.25 15:49, Amogh Desai wrote: >> Fair point, thanks for raising it here. >> >> There are two cases to consider in my opinion: >> >> *Case 1: Users still on AF2* >> These users shouldn’t face much confusion as long as they’re following the >> AF2 docs, >> which contains no references to the *sdk* module. When they eventually >> migrate to AF3, >> they should be able to bulk replace models with the corresponding *sdk* >> imports. >> Also, I was under the impression that ruff already does this as part of the >> migration guide. >> Is that not the case? >> >> *Case 2: Users who have migrated (or are migrating) to Airflow 3* >> These users should already be using the sdk companions if they’ve followed >> the migration guide. >> The guide should have helped update all relevant imports for them. >> >> Now, regarding the docs: >> >>> The bad thing is that even Airflow 3 docs have a mixture of those" >> If that’s true, we should definitely fix it -- soon. >> >> I think the one action item we should address is to clearly communicate >> that the documentation is >> versioned, and probably in the docs (your point 4). >> >> A lot of users land on specific pages via google searches, and if they >> unknowingly >> end up on the wrong version (e.g., Airflow 3 docs when still using Airflow >> 2), they could >> be misled by mixed or outdated imports. >> >> Thanks & Regards, >> Amogh Desai >> >> >> On Mon, May 5, 2025 at 6:28 PM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote: >> >>> Following the question of the user here: >>> >>> https://apache-airflow.slack.com/archives/CCQ7EGB1P/p1746442613931879?thread_ts=1746430604.330269&cid=CCQ7EGB1P >>> >>> The user asked which package they can install to be able to do "from >>> airflow.sdk import Variable". Turns out they are on Airflow 2. >>> >>> I think the user got quite confused about task.sdk and "from airflow.sdk" >>> because this is what they **might** see in our docs without realising it's >>> for Airflow 3 rather than Airflow 2. >>> >>> I wonder how we should communicate stuff now in the transition period in >>> our docs and what we should tell our users. Should we tell them to use: >>> >>> 1. from airflow.models Import Variables >>> or >>> 2. from airflow.sdk import Variables >>> >>> The first one allows migration from Airflow 2. And no-one will switch to >>> `from airlfow.sdk` before they migrate unless we will make task.sdk >>> possible to be installed in Airflow 2 (it can't be currently). >>> >>> The bad thing is that even Airflow 3 docs have a mixture of those. There >>> are many places where we still use "from airflow.models" and a number of >>> places where we already say "from airflow.sdk" and that can be - I think - >>> terribly confusing for users who are still using Airflow 2 (it will work >>> both ways for Airflow 3 of course, so people are likely to end up with >>> mixture of those as well - depending from where they are copy&pasting >>> stuff. >>> >>> Few questions: >>> >>> 1) Do we care about consistency (especially now)? >>> >>> 2) If we do - do we suggest users to make bulk replacement of "from >>> airflow.models" from `from airflow.sdk` after they migrate? Otherwise the >>> result will be - inevitably - a mixture of those. >>> >>> 3) Or maybe we should come up with a way to install something (or even have >>> it in airflow 2.11) to be able to switch to `from airflow.sdk` in Airflow >>> 2. >>> >>> 4) If not 3 (or even independently from 3) - should we have some way in >>> airflow 3 docs to indicate that this is Airflow 3 syntax-only and that they >>> should use "from airflow.models" in Airflow 2 to avoid similar confusion as >>> the slack user had? >>> >>> Were there any thoughts and discussion about it before? Maybe I missed it? >>> >>> J. >>> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@airflow.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@airflow.apache.org >
